Brown v. Rounsavell

Citations

• 78 Ill. 589

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract—mutuality. Where the obligee in a bond grants the right to purchase certain machines of him, to be re-sold within certain territory, and agrees to furnish the same at a discount, on a credit of six months, and a bond is given to him to secure payments for machines sold, it will not be void for want of mutuality.</p> <p>2. Same—in restraint of trade. A contract to furnish a party with sewing machines at a discount, and upon a credit, which provides that such party shall deal exclusively in the machine sold by the party agreeing to furnish, and to purchase the same of him exclusively, contains no such restraint of trade as to render it void.</p> <p>3. Pleading—variance. In a suit upon a bond for a breach of its conditions, where there was also a contract between the principal in the bond and the obligee, respecting the sale of sewing machines, the declaration showed that, by the contract, the obligee in the bond reserved the right to make sales in the territory named, while the condition of the bond showed that the other party had the exclusive right of purchasing from him the machines: Held, that there was no fatal variance, as the suit was upon the bond only.</p> <p>4. Verdict—action of court as to form. Where the verdict of a jury is not in form, mere irregularity in the proceedings of the court in having the same put in form, as in oral remarks and instructions which could not have affected the finding of the jury, except as to the mere form of the verdict, will not be sufficient error to reverse.</p> <p>5. Courts oe Cook county—whether held by one or more judges, Although the placita, or convening order, sent up in a record from the circuit court of Cook county, may show that the five judges were present and sitting, together with another assistant judge, yet if the bill of exceptions shows that the cause was tried by the latter judge alone, the judgment will not be reversed for the defect in the placita.</p>